Texas Case Summaries
Federal Enforcement »

USA v. Martinez-Licona — magistrate judge recommends accepting guilty plea to illegal reentry

Reported / Citable

Case
United States of America v. Gervin Alexi Martinez-Licona
Court
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, Del Rio Division
Judge
Matthew H. Watters
Date Decided
September 29, 2026
Docket No.
DR:26-CR-02376(1)-AM
Topics
Criminal procedure; Guilty plea; Illegal reentry

Background

Gervin Alexi Martinez-Licona appeared with counsel before U.S. Magistrate Judge Matthew H. Watters for a felony guilty-plea proceeding. The case had been referred to the magistrate judge under a general order for the taking of a felony plea.

After receiving Rule 11 admonishments, Martinez-Licona pleaded guilty, without a plea agreement, to Count One of the indictment charging illegal reentry into the United States. He consented to having the magistrate judge take the plea; sentencing remains before the presiding district judge.

The Court’s Holding

Judge Watters found that Martinez-Licona understood the charge, potential penalties, and his constitutional and statutory rights, and that he knowingly and voluntarily waived those rights. The magistrate judge also found him competent, concluded that the plea was voluntary, and found a sufficient factual basis for it.

The magistrate judge found Martinez-Licona guilty of the count to which he pleaded and recommended that the district court accept the guilty plea and enter a judgment of guilt. The recommendation is subject to objections and final action by Chief U.S. District Judge Alia Moses.

Key Takeaways

  • Martinez-Licona pleaded guilty to illegal reentry without a plea agreement.
  • The magistrate judge found the plea knowing, voluntary, and supported by an adequate factual basis.
  • The report recommends acceptance of the plea; the district judge will conduct sentencing.

Why It Matters

The filing is a magistrate judge’s findings and recommendation, not the district court’s final acceptance of the plea or a sentencing decision. Parties have 14 days to object, and failure to object may limit later review.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top